Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE

8/10/2019 Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE

1/7

Copyright IICE-2014 Published by Infonomics Society ISBN: 978-1-908320-25-4

IICE-2014

Edited By

Charles A. Shoniregun

Galyna A. Akmayeva

Ireland International Conference on Education

October 27-30, 2014, Dublin, Ireland

www.iicedu.org

IICE-2014 Proceedings

Contents Page Executive Committees Invited Workshop PhD/Doctorate Consortium

Welcome Speech Keynote Speakers Workshops Sessions
http://www.infonomics-society.org/http://naasln.org/http://www.ioe.ac.uk/http://www.ul.ie/http://www.southampton.ac.uk/http://www.canadianteachermagazine.com/http://www.e-missions.net/http://www.iicedu.org/


2/7

Ireland International Conference on Education (IICE-2014)

October 27-30, 2014, Dublin, Ireland

Bewleys Hotel BallsbridgeMarrion RoadBallsbridge

Dublin 4Ireland

Copyright IICE-2014 Published by Infonomics Society ISBN 978-1-908320-25-4 2


3/7

Flipping Advice for Beginners: What I Have Learned So Far(Author: Craig McBride)

233

Instructional Design of Collaborative Studies for Problem-Based Learning in English(Authors: Yoshinori Naruse, Akiko Nagayama)

240

Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Elementary Classroom Practice(Author: Linda Mabry)

244

Session 11: Curriculum, Research and Development 251

Library Education in Schools: The Case of Eleven Selected Schools in Mtubatuba, South Africa(Author: Veli Jiyane)

252

Comparison of French-Canadian Children with Other Samples of Children Using the Medical Symptom Validity Test(Author: Hlne Flamand)

253

The Use of Intercultural Simulation for Teaching Cultural Competence to Pre-Service Teachers(Author: Sharon Matthews)

254

An Appraisal of the Information Needs of Home-based and Cross-border Distance Students in Botswana(Author: Olugbade Oladokun)

259

Session 12: Language Education 265

Topic Selection and Development in LearnerNative Speaker Voice-Based Telecollaborative Discourse(Author: Anne Barron)

266

Third Year Level South African University Students Competenceof English Indirect Statements and Sequence of Tenses(Author: Matodzi Nancy Lambani)

269

Dual Language Learners in Early Childhood: Literacy through Language(Authors: Mary Ann Cahill, Anne E. Gregory)

270

Language-induced Cultural Conflict: Are Schools in Mining Towns in Zimbabwe Strategic in Averting Cultural Conflict?(Authors: Daniel Madzanire, Corinne Meier)

272

Session 13: ICT Education 281

Reliability and Validity of Social Media Toolkit(Authors: Selcan Kilis, Christian Rapp, Yasemin Glbahar)

282

Constructing Identities in an Online Forum of a South African University(Authors: Louise Postma, A. Seugnet Bl ignaut)

288

Supporting the development of Cloud Computing skills in SMEs through Training and Mentoring(Authors: Ileana Hamburg, Emma O Brien)

295

Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE(Authors: Ivanildo Jos de Melo Filho, Alex Sandro Gomes, Rosngela Saraiva Carvalho, Enio Luiz Costa Tavares)

302

Session 14: Global Issues in Education306

Four Portuguese Educational Guides on Gender and Citizenship(Authors: Cristina C. Vieira, Teresa Alvarez, Teresa Pinto)

307

The Boys in the Back Room Meet the Liberals under the Bed: Politics and Childrens Literature(Author: Hilary Pollack)

308

Israeli National Security and Palestinian Education after the Intifadas(Author: Jeffrey S. Burwell, S.J.)

313

Learning by listening to African women's voices in Australia(Author: Susie Costello)

318



4/7

Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between

LMS and PLE

Ivanildo Jos de Melo FilhoIFPEBelo Jardim CampusBrazil

UFPEInformatics CentreBrazil

Alex Sandro GomesUFPEInformatics CentreBrazil

Rosngela Saraiva CarvalhoUFPEInformatics CentreBrazil

Enio Luiz Costa TavaresIF SertoOuricuri CampusBrazil

Abstract

This paper aims to introduce a conclusion of aninitial study and make way for reflection on existing

limitations and difficulties in the Learning

Management System (LMS) literature opposing the

Personal Learning Environment (PLE). The revision

which was done assures the existing limitations in

the LMS, besides indicating that the researches

related to the formative accompaniment of the

learners activities in e-learning coming from this

possible integration are absent. Moreover, 03 (three)

integrating sceneries were identified and are

introduced. From these results, a scenario isproposed and introduced the concept of social

mechanism for the formative accompaniment

activities in e-learning. After that, two questions are

introduced. They are part of the follow-up step of

this investigation for discussing with this community.

1. Introduction

One of the most representative tools in the field ofe-learning is the LMS [1]. According to [2], the LMSare controlled and managed by teaching institutions.

They can be found in almost all the institutions, andconsequently, students, tutors, and teachers use them.To [3] the LMS is widely established and must stayin the learning field. It means that, whichever it is theteaching modality, this tool is completelyconsolidated in the educational range. Although,despite its extensive acceptance, [4] call our attentionto the fact it has not reached the expectedimprovements. To [1], the fundamental reasons tothis panorama are related to:

The learning process ought to be focused onthe learner not on the institution or even thecourse [5].

In the necessity to offer lifelong learningsupport to learners [6].

It is essential to consider the informal learningand the support to 2.0 tools which foster thislearning pattern [7].

The learning systems must be able to proceedwith the new technologies [8].

The LMS became prominent 20 years ago, inview of the World Wide Web general use [9].According to the authors, The technologies whichare used by LMS have a standard specification,

whether they are commercial, for instance theWebCT, REDU and Blackborad or Open Source asthe Moodle, A Tutor and LMS AMADEUS amongother ones. Whichever the perspective, they allintroduce basically similar functionalities and a set ofpedagogical approaches which may be developed.

These environments intrinsically have thecharacteristic of providing a set of benefits tostudents and employees at an institution. To thosewho manage an LMS environment it is allowed toprovide a set of tools that enable the addition of newcontents, a cut-off of an existing content in order tocreate new courses. The student is managed

efficiently, besides offering a unique integrationpoint with the students records systems.However, the LMS are considered a conservative

technology, it happens due to the fact they areidealised to be a solution to a set of institutionalproblems. Whether it is in the learners management,or it is in providing the tools, or even it is indelivering the contents. From this point of view, theLMS work efficiently to the necessities of theinstitutions. On the other hand, according to [9], theyare frequently badly adapted to the learners

necessities.In the attempt to solve these problems the PLE

arise. These learning environments are idealised to



5/7

be able to fulfil the brand new necessities, although,it is necessary to consider how to integrate formaltendencies, and informal ones in the learningprocess. It is assured by [1] that the PLE represent anopportunity to management, searching for higherefficiency in the learning process.

A lot of PLE solutions in a wide array of fieldsare conceived to the learning support, although, agreat number of them are focused on providingautonomy to learners, without keeping any relationto the systematic monitoring of their activities out ofthe LMS environment.

In the pursuit of his research [10], introduce thepotentials associated to the PLEs and He exposesthat this kind of technology is in itself a type ofincreasing phenomenon, and it has attracted theinterest in the e-learning field due to itsmultidimensional characteristic. Up to 2006, thedefinition to the PLE term remained unclear, that is

what assures [11]. The author shows that the conceptabout what must compose a PLE depends on theviewpoint and its use.

It suggests that the priorities to an PLE proposethemselves to be different to an undergraduatestudent, a technical education student, to a universitycoordinator, to a professor, to an specific assignment,or even to any individual who looks for analternative way of learning during ones lifetime.

This paper aims to introduce a conclusion of aninitial study and make way for reflection on existinglimitations and difficulties in the LearningManagement System (LMS) literature opposing the

Personal Learning Environment (PLE). Besides theintroduction to the limitations, it is also discussedand introduced the integration possibilities and howimportant they are in the learners formativeaccompaniment in e-learning.

This work is organised as it follows: section 2 isabout the LMS limitations facing the PLEpossibilities. Section 3 introduces the perspectives ofthe ongoing research. And, eventually, section 4comes up with some final considerations on thisresearch.

2. LMS: Limitations and Integrating

Perspective

The limitation characteristics of the LMS havebeen discussed since 2001, when [12] evinced thatarchitectures based on LMS do not meet thestudents learning needs completely during theirlives, hampering them to manage their own learning.Moreover, these architectures do not seem adequateto provide the learners with continuity, even if it istemporary, once they themselves are unplugged fromthese environments. The authors [13] reinforces thatthe LMS are mainly tools to deliver and organise thecontent built up by the teacher to the course,placing the students at a very passive role, simply as

followers of the modules of a course at a pre-determined rhythm.

In step with [5] the authors complement that thePLE are on the way to bring two institutional wallsdown, making solutions essential to integrate theinstitutional and non-institutional worlds, which

means the formal, not formal, and in the informallearning process. However, some determined tasksneed to be done because of some difficultiesshownin Table 1keep on existing in the relation.

Table 1. Difficulties associated with theprocess of integration between LMS and

PLE Adapted [1]

Difficulties Description

InteroperabilityThe LMS have difficulties toadd interoperability patterns [3].

Integration of

activities

The formation of integration ofactivities between LMS and

PLE are not adequate, once thePLE are conceived torepresentation, sorting, andaccompaniment in otherplatforms [14].

Traceability

Difficulties in the traceability ofthe user activities in the PLE.Therefore, it generatesproblems in the activities whichare considered formal [15].

Single-sign-on

execution

The difficulty to establish aunique entry point among thesystems involved [16].

SecurityDifficulties to ensure thesecurity of information due tolack of interoperability [17].

In light of the diversity of resources, solutions andexisting device make the coexistence possiblebetween the PLE and LMS in order to promote itsintegration has been a continuous challenge in thescientific community. To [2], bringing flexibility andextensibility to the LMS is crucial, this is because itprovides a free choice of Technologies andpedagogical material to teachers and learners in theircourses.

Even according to [1] there are lots of initiatives,although, none of them provide efficient methods toassure a complete integration and interaction inbetween LMS and PLE. To that extend [14]proposed 3 (three) sceneries to the coexistence:

Scenery 1:Parallel existence of the LMS andthe PLE. The PLE is a kind of dominantconception in informal learning environmentsor even in learning based on competences.Meanwhile, the LMS would remain as a keytechnology of the formal teaching systems.

Scenery 2: The LMS would make availableits structures, establishing an interoperability

with the PLE.



6/7

Scenery 3:Adding the PLE characteristics toLMS ones, this way, allowing in this way toincorporate the existing transforming power inthe PLE.

Based on proposals which belongs to [14], [1]shows that Scenery 1 does not considerate the

integration, simply the simultaneous companionship.Scenery 2 refers to the releasing of the LMSthroughout Web services and interoperabilityinitiatives, such as: initiatives based on iGoogle,social networks connected to the LMS, possibility tothe LMS to offer support to the implementation ofinteroperability specifications, for instance the IMS,the PLE could be conceived with a specific protocolof communication [10]. Or even to have theintegration based on Service Oriented Architecture(SOA). Finally, Scenery 3, in which [1] calls theattention to the fact that he considers the externaltool integrations in the LMS. This way, the learners

could not be able to decide which tools would beused, this way being restricted to institutionaldecisions.

3. Research Perspectives

The authors [18] emphasize that different LMSoffer different affordances and pedagogical designfor learning interactions, which results in differencelearning interaction patterns. They also add that withthe emergence of a new era in LMS a new set ofaffordances is needed to support the appropriate

learning interactions.It is known that formal teaching institutionspractise in their courses a traditional way ofevaluation, where at the end of each module or at theend of the course grades are given. Within theresearched literature, it was not identified any aspectdirectly related to the formative accompaniment ofthe learners with activities when they are out of theirformal learning environments. In this research, it isunderstood that formative accompaniment is thepossibility in which the teacher or the tutor is able toarrange to his pupils activities that could be done outof the LMS.

This context allows us to understand theimportance of the link the LMS must have with thePLE. Provide conditions that enable the teacher oreven the tutor to keep up with the learners along theirpath, mainly in activities out of the LMSenvironment which are related to activities in theirformal courses.

Due to the vast number of possibilities which maybe created using the PLE, its process of analysis,accompaniment, and evaluation, from both theoperational point of view in which the tools will beselected and used, and also in the accompaniment ofthe learners on which activities in their PLEs have

been done and that have a link with the currentactivities in the virtual learning environments.

The next step of this research seeks to exclusivelyinvestigate the phenomena arising from the inclusionof a social mechanism represented by Figure 1 between the educational contexts in order to enable

teachers and/or tutors have grants or indicators foraccompaniment individual or group. The proposedmechanism is according to the recommendations[19]. Furthermore, allow to realize who is strugglingin the learning process, and finally, which facilitatesin-depth analysis of the formative accompaniment,allowing actions to be taken as profile and learningcontext of the learners.

Figure 1. Social mechanism for formativeaccompaniment between LMS and PLE

The 4 elements are represented in Figure 1 andconsists in the next step in this research setting. In

the figure, the indication "1" is related the LMS informal courses or courses in the distance or blendedlearning. The indication 2 represent theintroduction of a social mechanism that would enablethe formative accompaniment in formal courses indistance education enabled by the integration ofthese educational contexts. This step consists in theconception and design of social mechanism and ithas 3 phases namely: Phase 01 Definingintegration technologies and architecture; Phase 02Designing and validating prototypes; Phase 03 Generate functional prototype. The indication "3"shows the user in this research considers that it

interacts with both the LMS, as for other tools on theweb or mobile devices represented by indication"4"in the pursuit of their learning.

In this context, two questions are released andconsist in the following step of this study: to whatextend the integration of educational contextsbetween LMS and PLE would allow teachers/tutorsthe adequate formative accompaniment out of theLMS in professional education courses? Then,similarly, being an element that contributes with thelink to promote organisation to their learningactivities?



7/7

4. Conclusions

Once it is about an ongoing work, the proposedsocial mechanism finds itself in a continuous processof development. It is believed that at the end of theperformance of the steps which were defined to its

conception, units or functional stages are conceived,this way, generating the conceptual pattern of thesocial mechanism to the formative accompaniment ine-learning.

5. References

[1] Conde, Miguel ngel; Garca-Pealvo, FranciscoJos; Casany, Mara Jos; Forment, Marc Alier.Personal Learning Environments and the Integrationwith Learning Management Systems. InformationSystems, E-learning, and Knowledge ManagementResearch Communications in Computer andInformation Science Volume 278, 2013, pp 16-21.

[2] Bogdanov, Evgeny; Ullrich, Carsten; Isaksson, Erik;Palmr, Matthias; Gillet, Denis. From LMS to PLE: a

Step Forward through OpenSocial Apps in Moodle.Presented at: The 11th International Conference onWeb-based Learning ICWL, 2012. Available in: . Last visit: April 16, 2014.

[3] Sclater, Niall. Web 2.0, Personal LearningEnvironments, and the Future of LearningManagement Systems (Research Bulletin, Issue 13).Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis andResearch, 2008. Available in:. Last visit: April 16, 2014.

[4] Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on Fire:Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0.In

Educause Review, January/February 2008, 43 (1),1632. Boulder: Educause. Retrieved January 20,2008.

[5] Attwell (a), G.: The Personal Learning Environments- the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers 2 (2007).Availablein:. Lastvisit: April 16, 2014.

[6] Attwell (b), G.: e-Portfolios the DNA of thePersonal Learning Environment? Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 3 (2007). Availablein: < http://www.pontydysgu.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/eportolioDNAofPLEjournal.pdf >. Last visit: April 16, 2014.

[7] Ajjan, H., Hartshorne, R.: Investigating facultydecisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory andEmpirical Tests. The Internet and Higher Education11, 7180 (2008)

[8] Mott, J., Wiley, D.: Open for Learning: The CMS andthe Open Learning Network. In: Education -Exploring Our Connective Educational Landscape.University of Regina, Saskatchewan (2009).

[9] Colin D. Milligan, Phillip Beauvoir, Mark W.Johnson, Paul Sharples, Scott Wilson, Oleg Liber.Developing a Reference Model to Describe thePersonal Learning Environment. InnovativeApproaches for Learning and Knowledge SharingLecture Notes in Computer Science Volume

4227, 2006, pp 506-511. Available in: . Last visit: April 16, 2014.

[10] Van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal LearningEnvironments. In: Computer Society (Eds.) SixthIEEE International Conference on AdvancedLearning Technologies (ICALT06), (pp.815-816)London, England, 02 April, 06 June, 2006. London:UK.

[11] Lubensky, R. The present and future of PersonalLearning Environments (PLE). Deliberations:Reflecting on learning and deliberating aboutdemocracy. 2006. Available in: Last visit:April 16, 2014.

[12] Olivier, B. and O. Liber. Lifelonglearning: the needfor portable personal learning environments andsupporting interoperability standards. SSGRR2002w International Conference on Advances inInfrastructure for Electronic Business, Education,Science and Medicine on the Internet, L'Aquilla, Italy.2001.

[13]

Downes, S. (2005). e-Learning 2.0. RetrievedSeptember 14, 2008, from elearn. Magazine.Available in:

Documents

Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE